Automatic artwork review and validation

ABSTRACT

An automatic artwork review system validates an artwork or a product label based on a received label specification document. Text extracted from the product label is chunked into sentences and words. Character-wise comparison is executed to identify the best match text from the label specification document for the sentence chunks from the product label. If the corresponding best match texts bears a similarity higher than a predetermined threshold to selected text including one or more sentence chunks, no errors are raised. If the similarity of the best match text to the selected text is not higher than the predetermined threshold, the specific errors occurring in the selected text and the particular portions where such errors are present are identified. The information regarding the errors can be output via one or more of an output user interface or a label compliance report.

BACKGROUND

A product artwork or a product label is a visual tool affixed to aproduct that delivers the product's details uniquely. While anordinary-looking label may provide legal information about the productsuch as its date of manufacturing and ingredients used, manufacturersprefer to use product labels as marketing tools also. As a result, thereis pressure to design the product labels to look attractive formarketing purposes while conveying the legal/regulatory informationalong with the marketing slogans, trademarks, icons, or other images.The text on the product labels is also designed to meet particularmarketing and/or legal specifications to ensure that the product labelincludes particular brand colors, fonts, images, etc. which facilitateeasy recognition of the product by consumers. Product labels aregenerally constrained by the size of the product. Hence, the textual andthe image content needs to be designed in the appropriate style so thatall the desired information is conveyed. A product label report or alabel specification document includes specifications regarding thetextual content to be conveyed on a product label and may be used tovalidate the product label. A product label may be validated against thelabel specification document to ensure that the product label meets theregulatory and marketing requirements.

BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF DRAWINGS

Features of the present disclosure are illustrated by way of examplesshown in the following figures. In the following figures, like numeralsindicate like elements, in which:

FIG. 1 shows a block diagram of an automatic artwork review system inaccordance with the examples disclosed herein.

FIG. 2 shows a block diagram of a text processor in accordance with theexamples disclosed herein.

FIG. 3 shows a block diagram of a label annotator in accordance with theexamples disclosed herein.

FIG. 4 shows a flowchart that details a method of validating a productlabel in accordance with the examples disclosed herein.

FIG. 5 shows a flowchart that details a method of generating orderedchunks in accordance with the examples disclosed herein.

FIG. 6 shows a flowchart that details a method of identifying the bestmatch text in accordance with the examples disclosed herein.

FIG. 7 shows a flowchart that details a method of providing output inaccordance with the examples disclosed herein.

FIG. 8 shows some example product labels that can be validated inaccordance with the examples disclosed herein.

FIG. 9 shows example label data and metadata that is validated by theartwork review system in accordance with the examples disclosed herein.

FIG. 10 shows an example output UI generated by the artwork reviewsystem in accordance with the examples disclosed herein.

FIG. 11 illustrates a computer system that may be used to implement theautomatic artwork review system in accordance with the examplesdisclosed herein.

DETAILED DESCRIPTION

For simplicity and illustrative purposes, the present disclosure isdescribed by referring to examples thereof. In the followingdescription, numerous specific details are set forth in order to providea thorough understanding of the present disclosure. It will be readilyapparent however that the present disclosure may be practiced withoutlimitation to these specific details. In other instances, some methodsand structures have not been described in detail so as not tounnecessarily obscure the present disclosure. Throughout the presentdisclosure, the terms “a” and “an” are intended to denote at least oneof a particular element. As used herein, the term “includes” meansincludes but not limited to, the term “including” means including butnot limited to. The term “based on” means based at least in part on.

An automatic artwork review system is disclosed which validates productartwork or product labels based on specifications in the labelspecification document. The artwork review system receives artworkincluding the product label and the corresponding label specificationdocument against which the product label is to be validated to ensurethat the product label includes all the requisite information in theprescribed manner. The text is initially extracted from the receivedproduct label and cleaned to remove extraneous data such as stamps, orunnecessary spaces, etc. The cleaned text from the product label isfurther chunked into sentence chunks which are further divided into wordchunks. It may be appreciated that the sentence chunk as used herein,does not necessarily require a capital letter at the beginning and aperiod at the ending. Rather, the sentence chunk includes a collectionof word chunks separated by predetermined spaces and optionally linebreaks, wherein each word chunk is further made up of multiplecharacters.

The characters are further converted into Unicode and the systemcompares each of the characters from the word chunks with the charactersfrom the textual content of the label specification document. A score iscomputed for the characters from the word chunks taking intoconsideration the trivial equalities, structure, positioning, anddistancing. The score is indicative of the extent of matching betweenthe characters from the word chunks and the characters from the labelspecification document. Based on the efficiency scoring, the best matchtext is identified from the label specification document for each of thesentence chunks. In an example, the best match text may be a completesentence beginning with a capital letter and ending with a period. In anexample, the best match text may be a collection of words. Thesimilarity between the sentence chunk and the best match text iscompared to a predetermined threshold to determine if the best matchtext is identical to the sentence chunk or if there are one or moredifferences between sentence chunks and the corresponding best matchtexts.

In an example, the characters are processed in a linear loop forequality analysis of the characters between the sentence chunks of theproduct label and the sentences of the label specification document. Adistance scoring DIFF is created for each character. A DIFF-patch isconverted into a pixel and distance-based list for producing an outputstring. Two texts can be diffed against each other, generating manypatches which will be converted as lists. These patches can then beapplied against a third text. If the third text has edits of its own,this version of the patch will apply its changes on a best-effort basis,reporting which patches succeeded and which failed.

If all the sentence chunks of the product label are identical to thecorresponding best match texts an output may be generated indicatingthat the product label complies with the label specification document.If, however, one or more differences are identified between at least oneof the sentence chunks and the corresponding best match text, furtheranalysis is executed to identify if differences have occurred due to oneor more insertion, replacement, or deletion of characters in the bestmatch text. Furthermore, pixel information of an image of the productlabel may be accessed, and the pixel locations of the differences areidentified on the image of the product label. In an example,semantically meaningful DIFFs can be created from minimal DIFFs.Meaningful diff may be obtained by passing over the data looking forequalities that are smaller than or equal to the insertions anddeletions on both sides of the equalities. When such equality is found,it is split into a deletion and addition. Then a second pass is made toreorder and merge all deletions and additions which aren't separated bysurviving equalities. Each insertion or deletion which is surrounded onboth sides by equalities is located and they are made slide sideways. Ifthe last token of the preceding equality equals the last token of theedit, then the edit may be slide left. Likewise, if the first token ofthe edit equals the first token of the following equality, then the editmay be slid right. Each of the possible locations can be scored based oneither the boundaries appear to be logical.

The output may be generated in multiple formats including an output UIand a label compliance report. The output UI may display the labelspecification document on one portion or a first side and an image ofthe product label on an adjacent portion or a second side so that therequirements may be compared with the product label. Furthermore, theoutput UI can include portions that convey particular best match textshaving compliant sentence chunks and best match text for which thecorresponding sentence chunks are non-compliant. Natural languageprocessing (NLP) summaries may be further generated to convey if theproduct label is compliant with the label specification document or ifdifferences exist therebetween.

The automatic artwork review system disclosed herein provides atechnical solution to the technical problem of automatically reviewingproduct labels to determine their compliance with the labelspecification documents. As mentioned herein, a product label is notonly used as a marketing tool but is also used to convey informationthat may be required by the regulatory regimes in the locations wherethe products are sold. Depending on the size of the product on which theproduct label is to be affixed, the font face, the font style, and thefont size need to be designed to not only look good but also convey allthe requisite information. An average product label, therefore, includesa vast amount of text to be conveyed in a limited space with varyingattributes. For example, some information may be conveyed on the productlabel as a paragraph of textual content while other information may beconveyed as tabular content. Furthermore, attributes of the textualcontent may vary depending on the requirements. Finally, the productlabels may convey the information in different languages. As a result,product labels may not be validated by computers using simple computervision functions for image analysis or natural language processing (NLP)techniques. The system disclosed herein processes the textual content ofthe product label as sentence and word chunks and further scores theword chunks character by character to identify even minute differencesor deviations in the product label as compared with the labelspecification document. Also, converting the textual data into Unicodeenables the system for increasing the efficiency bit rate and rendersthe system language agnostic so that product labels in any of theLatin-based languages may be reviewed by the system. The system,therefore, improves existing computer systems with product label reviewfunctions in multiple languages so that the errors in the product labelsmay be automatically identified and conveyed to users visually as wellas in a report format.

FIG. 1 shows a block diagram of an automatic artwork review system 100in accordance with the examples disclosed herein. The system 100receives as input an artwork that includes a product label 150 and alabel specification document 152 and determines if the product label 150complexes with the label specification document 152. The result of thedetermination can be provided to the user/reviewer either as a labelcompliance report 172 or via an output user interface 116. If any errorsare detected, the output may include details regarding the errors suchas where the errors occurred and what those errors are. The productlabel 150 includes textual content related to one or more products towhich the product label 150 may be affixed. The label specificationdocument 152 includes information regarding the textual content andattributes of the textual content to be employed for validating thetextual content and attributes of the textual content of the productlabel 150. The textual content on the product label may describecomponents or constituents of the product, usage instructions, warnings,or other regulatory information.

Various types of product labels are used for items such as foodproducts, medicines, electronic goods, clothing, etc., to provide thebuyers with information regarding the products. Some products may havemultiple labels attached to them with different labels includingdifferent information. While some information may be included on theproduct labels for advertisement purposes, other information may berequired to be included by regulations for food products, medicines,etc. Depending on the quantum of information to be included, productlabels may be categorized based on complexity as simple, mediumcomplexity, and highly complex. Simple product labels include a lessernumber of checkpoints or components to be reviewed with minimum or noregulatory information. Generally, smaller products or labels made forspecific parts of products such as bottle lids, etc. may have simpleproduct labels. As the product size increases, product labels tend tobecome more complex. Medium complexity labels include more informationas compared to simple product labels and therefore may have a greaternumber of checkpoints or components to be reviewed. For example,medium-sized nutritional product containers may have product labels ofmedium complexity. Highly complex product labels are generally producedfor multipacks or special combo offers that may include informationabout all the multiple units included in the multipack. The regulatoryinformation to be included would be multi-fold as it needs to berepeated for each unit in the multipack. Accordingly, the checkpoints orinformation components to be validated will increase proportionately,and therefore, the reviewer may be referred to multiple labelspecification documents or product labels reports (PLR) to proofread andvalidate such highly complex product labels thereby giving rise to ahigher probability of errors owing to human oversight.

The system 100 includes an input receiver 102, a text processor 104, alabel annotator 106, a UI generator 108 which may generate an input UI114 and an output UI 116, and a report generator 112. The system 100 canreceive the product label 150 and the label specification document 152via the input UIs 114 as a user uploads. In an example, the system 100may automatically access the product label 150 and the labelspecification document 152 from a storage device e.g., the data storage170, which is communicatively coupled to the system 100. Alternatively,the system 100 may receive the product label 150, the labelspecification document 152 via an email, etc. In an example, the productlabel 150, the label specification document 152 may be received in thesame format such as portable document format (.pdf). In an example, theproduct label 150, the label specification document 152 may be receivedin different formats. By way of illustration and not limitation, theproduct label 150 can be received in an image format, while labelspecification document 152 can be received in a pdf, or document (.doc)format. In addition to the actual textual content to be evaluated on theproduct label 150, the label specification document 152 includesattributes of the textual content, such as font size, font style,positioning, or arrangement of the textual content within the productlabel 150, etc.

The product label 150 and the label specification document 152 areprovided to the text processor 104 which extracts the textual contentfrom the product label 150 and the label specification document 152. Thetextual content may include content in different languages based on theLatin alphabet, such as English, French Italian, Portuguese, Spanish,Romanian, German, Dutch, Norwegian, Danish, etc. In order to operate ina language-agnostic manner, the textual content is converted intoUnicode characters by the text processor 104. In addition, theattributes of metadata of the textual content, such as the positioncoordinates of the textual content within the product label 150, theposition of specific words within the textual content, the font size,etc., are also extracted by the text processor 104. The Unicodecharacters along with the attributes of the textual content are providedto the label annotator 106 which compares the textual content from theproduct label 150 with the textual content of the product specificationsdocument 152. In addition, the label annotator 106 identifies thespecific errors or differences and positions of the errors in thetextual content of the product label as compared to the textual contentof the product specifications document 152. The errors identified by thelabel annotator 106 are provided to one or more of the UI generator 108and the report generator 112 for communication to the user. The reportgenerator 112 can be configured to generate a label compliance report172 using NLP techniques to generate a summary of the errors. An outputUI can display the label specification document 152 and an image of theproduct label 150 with the errors highlighted or annotated thereon.

FIG. 2 shows a block diagram of the text processor 104 in accordancewith the examples disclosed herein. The text processor 104 includes aspecifications document processor 202, a product label processor 204,and a text converter 206. The specifications document processor 202extracts the textual content of the label specifications document 152.In an example, the label specifications document 152 can be searchable,and therefore, tools such as libraries with text extraction functionscan be employed by the specifications document processor 202. Inaddition to the actual textual content, the label specification document152 can also include textual content attributes such as pixel positionsof specific words in the product label 150, the font size, the fontstyle, etc. The product label 150 may be generally received as an imageand hence the product label processor 204 employs image text extractiontechniques to extract and process textual content of the product label150. In an example, the product label processor 204 may employ OpenCVfunctions to extract text from the product label 150. The extracted textmay need to be further processed before it can be validated. This isbecause the product label 150 may include overlapping text such asstamps, text that is oriented vertically or diagonally, or text withnon-uniform spaces, etc. Hence, the product label processor 204 furtherexecutes a cleanup of the textual content extracted from the productlabel 150.

In an example, the overlapping text, the text which is orientedvertically or diagonally, or text with non-uniform spaces may bedeleted. In an example, overlapping text or text superimposed onunderlying print on the product label i.e., date stamps, etc. may beremoved. For example, in a single letter overlap, search for that letterin the second string. If the search is succeeded then the substrings areidentified for emasing the equality. Then indexOf function may be usedto locate any instance of the substring and one character. This processmay be repeated until no matches are found and the last confirmedsubstring match is identified as the overlapping text to be deleted. Thetext which is thus processed is provided to the text converter 206 forconversion into Unicode formats making the system 100, language-agnosticso that labels of multiple languages may be processed for validation.

FIG. 3 shows a block diagram of the label annotator 106 in accordancewith the examples disclosed herein. The label annotator 106 includes abest match identifier 302, a character comparator 304, and an annotationgenerator 306. The best match identifier 302 breaks up a selectedportion of the textual content extracted from the product label 150i.e., a selected text 354 into ordered chunks. In an example, thedifferent factors may be identified from the Unicode format and acharacter such as a line break can be identified so that a group ofwords between two line breaks may form an ordered chunk, namely asentence chunk. Each sentence chunk may be further broken up into wordchunks using the spaces between the words of the sentence chunk. Eachword chunk obtained from the sentence chunks of the product label 150 isfurther analyzed in a character-by-character comparison for efficiencyscoring with the textual content of the label specification document152. For each word chunk comparison with a word of the labelspecification document 152, an efficiency score may be obtained as:O*C+N  Eq. (1)

where ‘O’ is the number of edit operations to be executed on the wordchunk to be made equivalent to a given word, ‘C’ is the constant cost ofeach edit operation in terms of characters, and ‘N’ is the total numberof characters that are changed.

Based on the scoring, the best match sentence or best match text 352 canbe identified as the words/phrases with a minimum score for a selectedtext 354 from the textual content of the product label 150. In anexample of the selected text may contain one or more sentence chunks.

The best match texts may be identical to each of the correspondingsentence chunks from the product label so that no errors are raised inthe validation. The label annotator 106, therefore, provides an outputthat image of the product label 150 that was received as input to theoutput UI 116 without any annotations and including a message that theproduct label 150 is fully compliant with the label specificationdocument 152. The label compliance report 172 may be similarly generatedby report generator 112.

If the score of the characters of the selected text 354 indicates thatthe best match text 352 is not identical to the selected text 354, theselected text 354 and the best match text are provided to the charactercomparator 304 to identify where and which of the characters aredifferent. The differences can include omission of one or morecharacters, inclusion of one or more additional characters, and/orreplacement of the correct characters as given in the best match text352 with other characters in the selected text 354. The output from thecharacter comparator 304, therefore, includes the erroneous characterpositions or the erroneous characters in the selected text 354. Theoutput from the character comparator 304 is provided to the annotationgenerator 306 which generates a pixel and distance-based list of thecharacter comparator output. In an example, the annotation generator 306can generate an output image 356 which includes an annotated image ofthe product label 150 with the character comparator output highlighted.In an example, the character comparator output may also be provided tothe report generator 112 which employs NLP techniques to generate ahuman-readable report i.e., the label compliance report 172 thatinterprets the character comparator output.

FIG. 4 shows a flowchart 400 that details a method of validating theproduct label 150 in accordance with the examples disclosed herein. Themethod begins at 402 wherein the product label 150 and the labelspecification document 152 are received. At 404 text is extracted fromthe product label 150 and the label specification document 152. In anexample, the libraries of functions such as but not limited to PyPDF2and PDFMiner can be employed at 404 the text extraction depending on theformats of the received documents. If the product label 150 is receivedas an image, then Artificial Intelligence (AI)-based tools such asOpenCV may be employed for the text extraction from the image. At 406, acleanup process is executed on the text extracted from the product label150. This is because the product label text may be unstructured textwith overlapping characters, characters, or word chunks divided bynon-uniform spaces, or text which is oriented in different directionse.g., vertically, diagonally, etc. Accordingly, the overlapping text,the text which is oriented in non-horizontal directions, and/or thenonuniform text can be discarded during the cleanup process. If the textoriented in the non-horizontal direction needs to be extracted, then arotated image of the product label 150 may so that the text is orientedhorizontally for extraction.

At 408, ordered chunks are generated. For example, space or line breakcharacters may be employed to generate sentence chunks which are furthersplit into word chunks. The characters of the word chunks are convertedinto Unicode at 410. At 412, a sentence chunk is selected and at 414 thelongest common subsequence or the best match text 352 is identified fromthe textual content of the label specification document 152 for theselected text 354 from the product label 150. At 416, it is determinedif the selected text 354 is identical to the best match text 352 or ifthe match percentage of the selected text 354 and the best match text352 is 100%. If yes, the method moves to 418 to determine if furthertext remains for validation processing from the product label 150. Iffurther text remains for validation processing, the method returns to412 to select the next sentence chunk. If no further text from theproduct label 150 remains for validation processing, the method moves to420 to generate the output.

If it is determined at 416 that the selected text 354 is not identicalto the best match text 352, the method moves to 422 to identify thedifferences between the selected text 354 and the best match text 352 byexecuting comparisons therebetween. The differences between the selectedtext 354 and the best match text 352 are recorded at 418. Thedifferences may be recorded in different formats. For example, thedifferences may be annotated on an image of the product label 150 byhighlighting the portions or positions where the selected text 354differs from the best match text 352. In an example, the differences maybe summarized using NLP in the label compliance report 172. Thedifferences thus recorded are provided as output at 420.

FIG. 5 shows a flowchart 500 that details a method of generating orderedchunks in accordance with the examples disclosed herein. The methodbegins at 502 wherein a chunk of text to be analyzed is accessed. Thechunk of text may contain multiple sentence chunks. At 504, a sentenceis selected based on analysis of pixel positions and/or the Unicodecharacters in the chunks of text. For example, a space character, aperiod, or a line break character may be used to identify thebeginning/end of the sentence chunk. Accordingly, the first sentencechunk of the chunk of text may be selected at 504 at the beginning ofthe text chunking process. The positions of the spaces in the sentencechunk are identified at 506. The word chunks are extracted at 508 basedon the positions of the space characters in the sentence chunk. At 510it is determined if further sentence chunks remain to be processed. Ifyes, the method returns to 504 to select the next sentence chunk elsethe method terminates on the end block.

FIG. 6 shows a flowchart 600 that details a method of identifying thebest match text in accordance with the examples disclosed herein. At602, a word chunk is selected from a sentence chunk i.e., the selectedtext 354 for which the best match text 352 is to be identified from thetextual content of the label specification document 152. The word chunkis compared to each word of a selected sentence from the labelspecification document 152 and accordingly, a word is selected from thesentence at 604. At 606, a character is selected from the word chunk. At608, attributes of the selected character are compared to attributes ofanother character selected from the word. The characters may be comparedin order so that a character from the word chunk is compared to eachcharacter of the word in order. The character attributes that arecompared can include but are not limited to the structure of thecharacter, the distance of the character, and the position of thecharacter in the word chunk/word. A character score is determined at 610for the characters extracted from the word chunk. In an example, thecharacter score can be obtained via efficiency scoring as detailedherein. In an example, the character score can be obtained based on thesimilarity of that character and character attributes with thecorresponding character and character attributes of the word. In anexample, the character score may be a cumulative score of the characterunder each of the character attributes for which the data is compared.At 612, it is determined if more characters remain in the word chunk forcomparison. If yes, the method returns to 606 to select the nextcharacter from the word chunk.

If it is determined at 612 that no further characters remain from theword chunk for comparison, the method moves to 614 to determine if thereare more words from the textual content of the label specificationdocument 152 to be compared with the selected word chunk. If at 614 itis determined that more words remain to be compared with the selectedword chunk, the method moves to 604 to select the next word. In anexample, the characters may be processed in a linear loop to find anequality analysis of characters between the sentences. In an example, adistance scoring DIFF may be created for each character. A fuzzy matchmay be implemented so that a match can be identified even if the patterncontains errors and does not exactly match the word chunk. This may becomputed based on the number of differences between the pattern and thetext and the distance between the match and the expected location. Thematch distance parameter sets the relative importance of these twometrics.

If at 614, it is determined that no more words remain to be comparedwith the selected word chunk, the method moves to 616 to determine ifmore word chunks are to be scored. If yes, the method moves to 602 toselect the next word chunk. If at 616 it is determined that no more wordchunks remain to be processed, the method moves to 618 to aggregate thescores of the sentence chunk with each of the sentences of the labelspecification document. At 620, a sentence from the label specificationdocument 152 with the highest matching score is selected as the bestmatch text 352 for the sentence chunk.

FIG. 7 shows a flowchart 700 that details a method of providing outputin accordance with the examples disclosed herein. The method begins at702 wherein the character differences are identified between the bestmatch text and the sentence chunk. In an example, each character of thesentence chunk can be compared to the corresponding character of thebest match text and mismatching characters may be identified based onthe Unicode comparisons. In an example, the mismatches may occur due toone or more of insertion of additional characters, deletion ofcharacters, or replacement of characters in the word chunks as comparedto the corresponding words from the label specification document 152. At704, a pixelated image of the product label 150 is accessED, and thepixel positions of the character differences are identified and recordedfor the product label 150. The differences can be output in differentforms based on the user preferences for the system 100. For example, ifthe user employs the output UI 116, an image of the product label 150with the pixel positions highlighted may be generated at 706. However,if the user opts to receive the differences as a report, an NLP summaryof the differences can be generated at 708 and provided via one or moreof the output UI 116 and the label compliance report 172.

FIG. 8 shows some example product labels that can be validated inaccordance with the examples disclosed herein. A simple product label802 may have a small number of items to be validated. For example, thesimple product label 802 includes a nutritional information field 804, acategory field 806, a brand-name field 808, an advertising tag field812, and an item code field 814. These fields constitute unstructureddata and may be oriented in different directions. For example, the itemcode field 814 is oriented diagonally while the other fields areoriented horizontally. A medium-complexity product label 820 may includemultiple lines of information along with one or more tables, with thetext of different data types, e.g., string data, numeric data such asnumbers on a bar code label, dates, currencies, addresses, font sizes,font faces, and even different types, e.g., typed text or productstamps, etc. Hence, these labels are more complex and require more timefor validation. A highly complex label 830 includes numerous fieldswhich may pertain to one or more products of different fonts arranged indifferent data structure formats and different orientations. Forexample, the highly complex label 830 is designed for a multipack andhence may include multiple copies of the same information associatedwith each unit of the multipack.

FIG. 9 shows example label data and metadata that is validated by thesystem 100 in accordance with the examples disclosed herein. The system100 can be configured to detect not only the specifics of various fieldsassociated with the nutritional information but also the presentationformat (i.e., the metadata). For example, the required ingredientinformation 902 field may need to be gathered from the suppliers forverification. Similarly, various product label fields that are verifiedfor a simple product label are described herein for illustrationpurposes only. The nutritional label format 904 may need to be verifiedper the label specification document 152 including the font size, thefont type, the font style, the text positioning including centering,etc. Similarly, the daily values for nutrients 906, the dual columnformat 908, the actual amounts of minerals/nutrients 910, the list ofrequired nutrients 912 including Vitamin D, Potassium, Calcium and Iron,Daily value statement 914, the Added Sugar line 916, performcalculations to validate calculated values such as the total amount ofcalories per serving 918 and check for removal of Calories from Fat 920.Additionally, the system 100 can be further configured to validate thevarious format requirements described for each of the fields.

FIG. 10 shows an example output UI 1000 generated by the system 100 fordisplaying comparisons between the product label 150 and the labelspecification document 152 in accordance with the examples disclosedherein. The artwork or the product label 150 is displayed on the rightside whereas the label specification document 152 is displayed on theleft side of the output UI 1000. The output UI 1000 provides a varietyof UI elements that enable user interaction with the displayed content.The UI elements on the left side used for interacting with the labelspecification document 152 may include but are not limited to, thelanguage selection button 1002, the PAN space feature 1004, the zoomin/zoom out button 1006, the rotation buttons 1008, the search button1010, and the text editor 1012. The language selection button 1002 maybe used to identify the language of the product label 150 and the labelspecification document 152 to the system 100. Additionally, uploadbuttons 1022 and 1024 enable uploading the product label 150 and thelabel specification document 152 respectively for display in thecorresponding portions of the output UI 1000. In addition to theaforementioned UI elements, the right side also includes a timer thatmaintains the time taken for executing a validation task.

On uploading the product label 150 and the label specification document152 the user may click the compare button 1026 to begin the comparisonof the uploaded material. The difference between the documents isdisplayed at the bottom portion of the output UI 1000. The differencesbetween the best match text and the corresponding selected text of theproduct label are highlighted as shown on the left side in a best matchdisplay portion 1032 which shows a part of the label specificationdocument 152 with the best match text, while a summary display portion1034 shows a summary of the changes to be affected to the product label150 to make the product label 150 compliant with the best match textdisplayed on the left side. The summary of the changes shown in thesummary display portion 1034 is generated from the NLP components isshown on the right side. Furthermore, the output UI 1000 can beconfigured so that clicking on any one of the product label image on theright side or the label specification document display on the left sidemay automatically scroll to the corresponding portion on the left/rightside of the UI. For example, clicking on a tabular form in the labelspecification document 152 on the left side may automatically cause adisplay of the tabular form in the product label 150 on the right side.This is because a record of the pixel positions of the fields ismaintained by the system 100 and the output UI 1000 can be configured toidentify the portions of the display receiving the click events so thatthe corresponding portion of the label specification document or productlabel image can be displayed on the adjacent side.

FIG. 11 illustrates a computer system 1100 that may be used to implementthe automatic artwork review system 100. More particularly, computingmachines such as desktops, laptops, smartphones, tablets, and wearableswhich may be used to generate or access the data from the automaticartwork review system 100 may have the structure of the computer system1100. The computer system 1100 may include additional components notshown and that some of the process components described may be removedand/or modified. In another example, a computer system 1100 can sit onexternal-cloud platforms such as Amazon Web Services, AZURE® cloud orinternal corporate cloud computing clusters, or organizational computingresources, etc.

The computer system 1100 includes processor(s) 1102, such as a centralprocessing unit, ASIC or another type of processing circuit,input/output devices 1112, such as a display, mouse keyboard, etc., anetwork interface 1104, such as a Local Area Network (LAN), a wireless802.11x LAN, a 3G, 4G or 5G mobile WAN or a WiMax WAN, and aprocessor-readable medium 1106. Each of these components may beoperatively coupled to a bus 1108. The computer-readable medium 1106 maybe any suitable medium that participates in providing instructions tothe processor(s) 1102 for execution. For example, the processor-readablemedium 1106 may be a non-transitory or non-volatile medium, such as amagnetic disk or solid-state non-volatile memory, or a volatile mediumsuch as RAM. The instructions or modules stored on theprocessor-readable medium 1106 may include machine-readable instructions1164 executed by the processor(s) 1102 that cause the processor(s) 1102to perform the methods and functions of the automatic artwork reviewsystem 100.

The automatic artwork review system 100 may be implemented as softwareor machine-readable instructions stored on a non-transitoryprocessor-readable medium and executed by one or more processors 1102.For example, the processor-readable medium 1106 may store an operatingsystem 1162, such as MAC OS, MS WINDOWS, UNIX, or LINUX, and code 1164for the automatic artwork review system 100. The operating system 1162may be multi-user, multiprocessing, multitasking, multithreading,real-time, and the like. For example, during runtime, the operatingsystem 1162 is running and the code for the automatic artwork reviewsystem 100 is executed by the processor(s) 1102.

The computer system 1100 may include a data storage 1110, which mayinclude non-volatile data storage. The data storage 1110 stores any dataused by the automatic artwork review system 100. The data storage 1110may be used to store the product label 150, the label specificationdocument 152, the label compliance report 172, or other data elements,which are generated and/or used during the operation of the automaticartwork review system 100.

The network interface 1104 connects the computer system 1100 to internalsystems for example, via a LAN. Also, the network interface 1104 mayconnect the computer system 1100 to the Internet. For example, thecomputer system 1100 may connect to web browsers and other externalapplications and systems via the network interface 1104.

What has been described and illustrated herein is an example along withsome of its variations. The terms, descriptions, and figures used hereinare set forth by way of illustration only and are not meant aslimitations. Many variations are possible within the spirit and scope ofthe subject matter, which is intended to be defined by the followingclaims and their equivalents.

What is claimed is:
 1. An automatic artwork review system, comprising:at least one processor; a non-transitory processor-readable mediumstoring machine-readable instructions that cause the processor to:receive a label specification document and a product label, the labelspecification document including textual content and attributes of thetextual content to be used for validating textual content on the productlabel; break up the textual content of the product label into sentencechunks and word chunks; convert characters of the textual content of theproduct label and characters of the textual content of the labelspecification document into Unicode characters; score the characters andcharacter attributes from the word chunks based on similarities with thecharacters and character attributes from the textual content of thelabel specification document; identify from the textual content of thelabel specification document, a best match text for the sentence chunksbased on the scores of the characters of the word chunks; determine ifthe scores of the characters of the sentence chunks indicate matchpercentages higher than a predetermined threshold with correspondingbest match texts from the textual content of the label specificationdocument; identify one or more of the sentence chunks having the matchpercentages with the corresponding best match texts less than thepredetermined threshold; identify for the sentence chunks having thematch percentages less than the predetermined threshold, one or morecharacters in the sentence chunks that differ from correspondingcharacters of the corresponding best match texts; and provide an outputthat informs a user of the one or more characters in the sentence chunksthat differ from characters of the corresponding best match texts. 2.The artwork review system of claim 1, wherein the processor is tofurther: disregard from further processing, the sentence chunks with thematch percentages higher than the predetermined threshold; and providethe output that the sentence chunks with the match percentages higherthan the predetermined threshold are compliant with the labelspecification document.
 3. The artwork review system of claim 1, whereinto provide the output the processor is to further: enable displaying onan output user interface (UI), an image of the product label with theone or more characters highlighted for at least one of the sentencechunks.
 4. The artwork review system of claim 3, wherein to provide theoutput the processor is to further: enable providing on a first side ofthe output UI, the label specification document that includes the bestmatch text for the at least one sentence chunk including the one or morecharacters and a portion of the image of the product label including theat least one sentence chunk with the one or more characters on a secondside of the output UI.
 5. The artwork review system of claim 4, whereinthe second side is adjacent to the first side.
 6. The artwork reviewsystem of claim 4, further comprising: providing a best match displayportion and a summary display portion in the output UI, wherein the bestmatch display portion displays the best match texts identified from thelabel specification document displayed on the first side while thesummary display portion displays a summary of changes to be made to theproduct label to make the product label compliant with the labelspecification document.
 7. The artwork review system of claim 1, whereinto identify the characters in the sentence chunks that differ fromcorresponding characters of the best match texts the processor is tofurther: identify additional characters included in one or more of thesentence chunks of the product label and corresponding ones of the bestmatch texts from the label specification document.
 8. The artwork reviewsystem of claim 1, wherein to identify the characters in the sentencechunks that differ from corresponding characters of the best match textsthe processor is to further: identify at least one of the characters inone of the sentence chunks that is different from one of thecorresponding characters in one of the best match texts.
 9. The artworkreview system of claim 1, wherein to provide the output for each of thesentence chunks having match percentages less than the predeterminedthreshold the processor is to further: generate a human-readable summaryof differences between the sentence chunks and corresponding ones of thebest match texts by employing natural language processing (NLP).
 10. Theartwork review system of claim 1, wherein to extract the textual contentfrom the product label the processor is to further: remove overlappingtext from the textual content of the product label.
 11. The artworkreview system of claim 1, wherein to extract the textual content fromthe product label the processor is to further: remove from considerationa portion of the textual content of the product label that is orientedin a non-horizontal direction.
 12. The artwork review system of claim 1,wherein to extract the textual content from the product label theprocessor is to further: remove from consideration a portion of thetextual content of the product label wherein the word chunks are dividedby non-uniform spaces.
 13. The artwork review system of claim 12,wherein to identify the sentence chunks having the match percentagesless than the predetermined threshold the processor is to further:extract the characters and attributes of the characters from thesentence chunks, wherein the character attributes for each of thecharacters include a structure, a position, and a distance of thecharacter from a beginning of a corresponding one of the sentencechunks.
 14. A method of reviewing a product label for compliance,comprising: extracting textual content from the product label, whereinthe textual content from the product label is to be compared to textualcontent from a label specification document; generating sentence chunksincluding one or more words chunks from the textual content extractedfrom the product label; converting characters in the word chunks andcharacters from the textual content of the label specification documentinto Unicode characters; score the characters and attributes of thecharacters of the word chunks based on a comparison with the charactersof the label specification document and attributes of the characters ofthe label specification document; identifying a best match text from thetextual content of the label specification document for each of thesentence chunks based on the scores of the characters of the wordchunks; identifying one or more of the sentence chunks with the scoresbelow a predetermined threshold; execute a character-wise comparisonbetween each of the sentence chunks with the scores below thepredetermined threshold and corresponding ones of the best match texts;identifying for each of the word chunks, one or more of the charactersin the word chunks that are different from the characters of acorresponding one of the best match texts; determining if one of areplacement, an insertion, or a deletion operations is to be executedfor each of the one or more characters in the word chunks that aredifferent from the characters of the corresponding ones of the bestmatch texts; and enabling generation of an output that includesannotations of the one or more characters in the word chunks subject toone of the replacement, insertion, or deletion operations.
 15. Themethod of claim 14, further comprising: identifying on a pixelatedversion of the product label, pixel positions of each of the one or morecharacters in the word chunks that are different from the characters ofthe corresponding ones of the best match texts.
 16. The method of claim15, wherein enabling the generation of the output further comprises:enabling the generation of an output user interface (UI) that displaysan image of the product label with the pixel positions highlighted. 17.The method of claim 15, wherein enabling the generation of the outputfurther comprises: generating a label validation report that includes anatural language processing (NLP) summary in a human-readable format ofthe one or more characters in the word chunks that are different fromthe characters of the corresponding ones of the best match texts.
 18. Anon-transitory processor-readable storage medium comprisingmachine-readable instructions that cause a processor to: receive a labelspecification document and a product label, the label specificationdocument including textual content and attributes of the textual contentto be used for validating textual content on the product label; break upthe textual content of the product label into sentence chunks and wordchunks; score characters and character attributes from the word chunksbased on similarities with characters and character attributes from thetextual content of the label specification document; identify from thetextual content of the label specification document a best match textfor the sentence chunks based on the scores of the characters; determineif the scores of the characters of the sentence chunks indicate a matchpercentage higher than a predetermined threshold with correspondingsentences from the textual content of the label specification document;identify one or more of the sentence chunks have match percentages lessthan the predetermined threshold; identify for the sentence chunkshaving the match percentages less than the predetermined threshold, oneor more characters in the sentence chunks that differ from correspondingcharacters of the best match texts; and provide an output that informs auser of the one or more characters in the sentence chunks that differfrom the corresponding characters of the best match texts.
 19. Thenon-transitory processor-readable storage medium of claim 18, comprisingfurther instructions that cause the processor to: identify on apixelated version of the product label, pixel positions of characters inthe word chunks that are different from characters of correspondingwords of the best match texts.
 20. The non-transitory processor-readablestorage medium of claim 19, wherein the differences are caused due toone of a replacement of the characters, an insertion of the characters,or a deletion of the characters on the word chunks.